How To Develop An Electronic Product Standard For Epeat

Transcription

1 FINAL EPEAT Standards Development Roadmap (EPEAT SDR) Prepared by Zero Waste Alliance with support from the U.S. EPA and The Center for Clean Products and Materials Policy

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary Project Overview Product Recommendations Products of Interest and Grouping Consumer Electronic Products Product Priority and Sequencing Imaging Devices (Printers, Copiers and MFDs) Televisions and Television Monitors Servers Mobile Devices (Mobile Phones, PDAs and SmartPhones) Implementation Recommendations Selection of a Standard Development Organization (SDO) Creating a Family of IEEE 1680 Standards Development of a Sponsor Amendment of Process for Amendments of Existing Standard or Development of New Standards Implementation Timeline Process Management and Support Undecided Questions Next Steps and Funding...14 Attachment 1 - SDR Evaluation Considerations Table...15 Attachment 2 Proposed Product Definitions...23 Attachment 3 Full List of Electronic Products Considered in the SDR Process...25

3 Executive Summary This document provides a Roadmap for the development of environmental leadership standards for new electronic products comparable to the IEEE 1680 standard for computers and monitors EPEAT. The recommendations were developed based on extensive input from stakeholders. Recommendation 1. Sequence of new standard development: Four product categories are of highest interest, and standard development is recommended to occur in the following sequence: 1&2 Imaging Devices (Printers, Copiers and Multi-Function Devices (MFDs)) and Televisions and Television Monitors (two separate standards) Development of standards for these two product categories are proposed to be conducted first. The initiation of these two product standards development processes is expected to be slightly staggered. The sequence will be determined, based on resource availability and stakeholder interest, at the Standards Implementation Planning meeting to be hosted by EPA in October. 3 Servers Development of a standard for servers is proposed to begin following the completion of 1) either the imaging device or television standards development process; and, 2) the ENERGY STAR specifications for servers, which is likely to be completed by 1 st quarter 2008 and go into effect 3 rd quarter 2008 according to ENERGY STAR. 4 Mobile Devices (mobile phones, PDAs and SmartPhones) Development of a standard for mobile devices is proposed to begin following the completion of 1) the standards development process for both imaging devices and televisions; and, 2) the ENERGY STAR specifications for external power supplies, likely to be completed by mid-2008 according to ENERGY STAR. Recommendation 2. Method of standard development: The future environmental standards should be developed through an ANSI accredited, voluntary consensus standard process using the IEEE as the Standard Development Organization. This will preserve continuity with EPEAT/IEEE 1680 and build on the successes to date. Recommendation 3. Create a family of IEEE 1680 standards: A family of standards would consist of an umbrella standard containing common elements, and individual standards for different products. It is proposed that the existing 1680 be split into two standards; 1) the new 1680 would become the umbrella standard including the common elements such as describing the operation of EPEAT which is contained primarily in section 1 of the current 1680; and, 2) would contain the environmental criteria for desktops, laptops and monitors. Standards through would be the four standards for the products recommended in this Roadmap. Recommendation 4. Implementation timeline: The standard development process is expected to take months for each new standard from the start to the close of balloting or publication of the standard. The amendment processes for 1680 and are expected to take 4 to 6 months. Given staffing resources and stakeholder availability, it is recommended that no more than two processes are in active standard development mode at any time. Note that the initiation dates proposed below are then dependent on the progress of earlier standard development processes. Page 1

4 Standards Amendment/Develop ment Initiation Timing (Approximate) September 2007 September 2007 December 2007 February 2008 Winter or Spring 2009 Summer or Fall 2009 IEEE Standard 1680 (Amendment) (Amendment) (Development) (Development) (Development) (Development) Scope of the Standard Umbrella Structure Computer Desktops, Laptops, and Monitors Imaging Devices or Televisions/Television Monitors Televisions/Television Monitors or Imaging Devices Servers Mobile Devices Notes Timing and scope will be decided by the Green Electronics Council, not the SDR Timing and scope will be decided by the Green Electronics Council, not the SDR Sequence will be determined at the implementation planning meeting in October Sequence will be determined at the implementation planning meeting in October Begin after completion of either or , whichever is first, and the completion of the ENERGY STAR specification Begin after completion of both and , and the ENERGY STAR specification for external power supplies This proposed timeline is dependent on securing resources and funding to run these processes. The exact scope of products for each of these standards will be determined by the IEEE standard development Working Group (see description below). This includes such issues as whether set top and digital converter boxes will be included in the television standard. Recommendation 5. Launching the standard development process: Following completion of the Roadmap, EPA will: Convene a Standards Implementation Planning meeting to discuss Roadmap implementation with potential funders and diverse stakeholders who will participate actively in standard development (October). Work to assemble the teams of stakeholders and support personnel needed to carry out the processes. Oversee the first steps of the convening process for standards development. EPA intends to provide partial funding for development of all four standards. Additional funding will be required to complete the proposed Roadmap. Page 2

5 1.0 Project Overview The purpose of the EPEAT Standard Development Roadmap (SDR) project is to provide recommendations for development of environmental leadership standards for electronic products that are parallel and compatible with IEEE 1680 EPEAT. This was conducted by gathering input from interested stakeholders on: Which electronics products are the highest priority for the development of new leadership environmental standards Groupings of products for environmental performance standards development Sequence and method of environmental performance standard development Issues that need to be considered both in the prioritization and the actual standards development The recommendations of this Roadmap are expected to build the basis for launching the process to develop new electronic product standards for EPEAT. This Roadmap, however, does not imply a commitment by any of the stakeholders or potential funders. The EPEAT SDR Project was managed by the Zero Waste Alliance (ZWA) ( Initial information to aid in framing the project was collected through a convening assessment 1. This assessment informed development of a draft Background and Discussion Document, which was open for public comment in April It was revised based on input and again open for review in June The Final Background Document and comments received during the public comment periods are available at 2. The Background Document contains information that supported this SDR process and will provide starting information for the workgroups developing future standards. Stakeholder viewpoints have been synthesized into this Final Roadmap. Stakeholders provided input during two public comment periods in June and July More project information is available at A chart detailing the information gleaned from research and stakeholder input which informed the product recommendations below is located in Attachment Product Recommendations 2.1 Products of Interest and Grouping Grouping. Input from stakeholders indicated that imaging devices (printers, copiers and multi-function devices (MFDS)) as well as mobile devices (mobile phones, PDAs and SmartPhones) should be grouped into individual categories for environmental standards development. It was noted however, that the standards will need to address the different technologies and functionalities of the various products within these categories. Products of highest interest. Stakeholder input indicated that the following four categories are of highest interest for development of environmental performance standards (in alphabetical order): Imaging devices (printers, copiers and MFDs) 1 at 2 EPEAT SDR Revised Final Background Document,. 3 Attachment 1 contains information gathered by The Center for Clean Products and Materials Policy at the University of Tennessee from existing research and reports on environmental and energy profiles for products of highest interest. Page 3

6 Mobile devices (mobile phones, PDAs and SmartPhones) Servers Televisions and television monitors This Roadmap focuses on these four product categories of highest interest. Proposed definitions for these product categories are provided in Attachment 2. Some stakeholders also expressed interest in digital television adapters (DTAs) and set top boxes and suggested that they be incorporated into a standard such as televisions. However, other stakeholders indicated that DTA and set top boxes are notably different products from televisions from a technical standpoint and could complicate and delay completion of the television standard. Another stakeholder noted that it is too late for a DTA standard as the design stage is already completed for products largely designed for the digital to analog switch. Work has already been completed by Energy Star and the National Telecommunications asnd Information Administration (NTIA) to develop a base energy efficiency level for DTAs eligible for the NTIA coupon, and ENERGY STAR has also developed more aggressive specifications for DTAs which are currently in effect. (for more information see The Working Groups assembled to develop these standards will consider the scope of products for each standard during the standard setting process. Products of low interest. Facsimile machines and scanners were of low interest as stand-alone products because they are being incorporated into multi-function devices. Consequently they are not specifically included as stand-alone devices in the imaging devices list of products. However, the actual scope of products in a standard will be determined in the standard development process. A complete list of products considered during this roadmap development process is provided in Attachment Consumer Electronic Products The current EPEAT standard, IEEE 1680, is explicitly designed for computers and monitors sold to institutional purchasers. Though initially open to all types of electronic products, the EPEAT Development Team for IEEE 1680 decided to focus initially on products sold to institutional purchasers. In this SDR project, there has been clear interest among stakeholders to also explore development of environmental performance standard(s) for products commonly purchased by individual consumers (sometimes referred to as consumer electronics (CE) products). Given that interest, it is recommended that standards be developed for both institutional market and consumer market products. Due to the focus on institutional purchasers in the initial implementation of EPEAT, following completion of this Roadmap, it is recommended that EPEAT Inc. and its Board of Advisors evaluate the role that EPEAT Inc. should play in implementation of the recommendations for CE products in the context of the current EPEAT mission Product Priority and Sequencing Information collected and stakeholder feedback were synthesized and the recommended priority/sequence of development of environmental performance standards for the four product categories of highest interest is presented below. The information and input used to develop these recommendations is described briefly in the following subsections and presented in more detail in Attachment 1. 4 EPEAT Inc. is the incorporated sub-organization within GEC that maintains the Registry, signs agreements with subscribers and conducts verification ( Page 4

7 Sequence of Standards Development 1 st Priority - Imaging Devices (printers, copiers and MFDs) and Televisions and Television Monitors (two separate standards) Imaging Devices (printers, copiers and MFDs) Development of a standard for imaging devices is proposed to be conducted as the first priority, roughly parallel with televisions and television monitors. The initiation of the two 1 st priority product standards development processes are expected to be staggered. The sequence will be determined at the implementation planning meeting in October (see Section 4) based on resource availability and stakeholder interest. Televisions and Television Monitors Development of a standard for televisions and television monitors is proposed to be conducted as the first priority, along with imaging devices. The initiation of the two 1 st priority product standards development processes is expected to be staggered. The sequence will be determined at the implementation planning meeting in October (see Section 4) based on resource availability and stakeholder interest. Several stakeholders indicated that if these two processes were not able to be initiated simultaneously, they had a strong preference for televisions/televisions monitors to be undertaken first due to the upcoming switch from analog to digital. When considering the timing of standard development for TVs, EPA strongly recommends that the additional cost associated with marketing to consumers be considered. 2 nd Priority - Servers Servers Development of a standard for servers is proposed to begin following the completion of the ENERGY STAR standard for servers (likely to be completed by 1 st quarter 2008 and go into effect 3 rd quarter 2008) as well as the completion of one of the first two standards (imaging devices or televisions). We heard from stakeholders the importance of having an ENERGY STAR standard for servers in place prior to development of a broader environmental standard. 3 rd Priority Mobile Devices Mobile Devices (mobile phones, PDAs and SmartPhones) Development of a standard for mobile devices is proposed to begin following the completion of the standards development process for both imaging devices and televisions. We heard from stakeholders that the timing of this standard development process should reflect upcoming ENERGY STAR external powers supply specifications. ENERGY STAR has indicated that these specifications will likely be complete by mid These recommendations will likely be substantially impacted by the availability of funding for each standard development process. A proposed timeline is presented in Section 3.6. Considerations in Setting Priorities and Sequences of Products The information used to develop the recommendations is provided in Attachment 1 and includes: Existence of single or multi-attribute environmental performance standards that could serve as the basis of a comprehensive U.S. standard. Extent of overall environmental impact of the product and opportunity for influencing design change through a new standard this includes a qualitative review of the products average energy Page 5

8 consumption during the use phase, overall mass, likely inclusion of substances of note, and how the products are managed at the end of life. The environmental considerations were modeled after the categories of criteria in the existing 1680 standard. For example, energy consumption during the use of a product is included in 1680, whereas energy consumption during the manufacturing is not. Therefore, this evaluation included energy consumption during use, but not manufacturing. The IEEE standard development workgroups will be responsible for making final determinations as to which environmental performance attributes to develop criteria for under each standard, and may alter from what was covered in The relative size of the current and future markets for the products, focusing specifically on projected market size in the next 3 5 years. Other market factors that could influence the success of a future standard were also reviewed, such as the relative proportions of institutional vs. consumer markets, distribution channels, turnover rates, etc. It also considered upcoming significant market changes, primarily the analog to digital TV transition in Stakeholder interest in developing environmental performance standards for the products. Ease of standard development and implementation. These considerations were reviewed for each of the four product categories of highest interest. The approach taken was qualitative, with assignments of high, medium and low based on an evaluation of importance and/or opportunity for incentivizing design improvement in the product category (see Attachment 1) Imaging Devices (Printers, Copiers and MFDs) It is recommended that imaging devices (printers, copiers and multi-function devices) be one of the first two environmental standards to be developed. As this category includes multiple products, the standard will need to address different technologies and functionalities of the products within these categories. As other standards exist for some imaging devices, a few stakeholders urged that these be closely reviewed during the standards development process. A few other stakeholders felt that a standard for imaging devices was not necessary given the existence of other standards. However, we heard from many stakeholders, including government purchasers, strong interest in developing an EPEAT standard for imaging devices. Based on the input, it is recommended that existing standards for imaging devices be closely reviewed during the standard development process and that an effort is made to harmonize with existing standards to the extent feasible. Facsimile machines and scanners were of low interest among stakeholders, and consequently are not specifically included in the imaging devices list of products. However, the actual scope of products in a standard will be determined in the standard development process. The recommendation to develop a standard for imaging devices is based on the following: There are many existing standards including an ENERGY STAR standard and a European Union EuP standard is under development. Environmental criteria for imaging devices is likely to be similar to computers in IEEE 1680, which may simplify development of a new environmental performance standard for this product. Page 6

9 There is a large institutional purchasing component for imaging devices, including the federal government, making it relatively easy to influence a significant part of the market. However, much of the purchasing/leasing of imaging devices may be decentralized. The federal government is currently considering development of government-wide acquisition contracts (GWACs) for printers and copiers as part of the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative. Based on data of units sold in the U.S. in 2007 and rough estimates of average product units weights (see Attachment 1), the total annual weight of the imaging devices (printers, copiers and MFDs) sold currently in the U.S. appears to be among the highest of the product categories assessed in this Roadmap. Based on data of units sold in the U.S. in 2007 and energy usage estimates (see Attachment 1), the total annual energy usage of the imaging devices (printers, copiers and MFDs) sold currently in the U.S. appears to be in the mid-range of the four product categories assessed in this Roadmap. There appears to be a high level of interest among both purchasers and manufacturers in development of an environmental performance standard for these products Televisions and Television Monitors It is recommended that televisions and television monitors be one of the first two environmental standards to be developed. This recommendation is based on the following: There are three existing environmental performance standards, including an ENERGY STAR standard, for this product category. The upcoming switch from analog to digital TV in February 2009 will likely trigger a substantial increase in television sales. Environmental criteria for televisions and television monitors are likely to be similar to monitors in IEEE 1680, which may simplify development of a new environmental performance standard for this product. Based on data of units sold in the U.S. in 2007 and rough estimates of average product units weights (see Attachment 1), the total annual weight of televisions sold currently in the U.S. appears to be among the highest of the product categories assessed in this Roadmap process. Based on data of units sold in the U.S. in 2007 and energy usage estimates (see Attachment 1), the total annual energy usage of televisions sold currently in the U.S. appears to among the highest of the four product categories assessed in this Roadmap. This product category appears to have two notable features impacting end of life the use of mercury lamps (in some products) and the use of liquid crystals (in some products). Liquid crystals cannot yet be economically reclaimed at end of life. 10% of the TVs currently purchased in the U.S. are bought by institutional purchasers. The 10% of institutionally purchased TVs in the U.S. represents a significant quantity (estimated to be nearly 130,000 tons for 2007 see Attachment 1) of material and potential environmental benefits. The other 90% are purchased by individual consumers. To effectively implement the standard for the 90% of TVs purchased by individual consumers, a significant change to the current EPEAT program would be required. Based on information provided by ENERGY STAR and other stakeholders, reaching individual consumers requires extensive marketing and resources. There appears to be a high level of interest among manufacturers. Interest among purchasers appears to be mid-range. Page 7

10 2.3.3 Servers It is recommended that an environmental standard be developed for servers following the completion of the ENERGY STAR standard development process based the following: An ENERGY STAR standard is being developed and there are currently no other known completed environmental performance standards for this product. Stakeholders indicated that while there was considerable support for a server standard, the ENERGY STAR standard process needed to be completed first. Based on a recent study by Koomey (2007; see Attachment 1) the total annual energy usage of servers sold currently in the U.S. appears to be among the highest of the four product categories (second to televisions) assessed in this Roadmap. Although actual data was not obtained, it is highly likely that there is a large institutional purchasing component for servers making it relatively easy to reach purchasers and thus harness demand for greener versions of these products. Market data (see Attachment 1) indicates that this product category has the least number of units sold annually. However, servers appear to be a growing market (projected increase of 69% from 2005 to 2009). There is a broad range of product types, configurations and applications for servers, storage and networking devices which will require careful consideration and definition. Although there appears to be a high level of interest from those manufacturers that provided feedback, the government purchasers that gave input ranked servers as a lower priority Mobile Devices (Mobile Phones, PDAs and SmartPhones) It is recommended that an environmental performance standard be developed for mobile devices (mobile phones, PDAs and SmartPhones) following the completion of the standards development process for imaging devices and/or televisions. This recommendation is based the following: There are currently two existing environmental performance standards for mobile phones and no ENERGY STAR standard. Environmental criteria for these products may be substantially different than those for computers and monitors in IEEE The average lifespan of mobile phones is shorter (1.5 years) than for products in the other three product categories assessed in this Roadmap. Based on data of units sold in the U.S. in 2007 and rough estimates of average product units weights (see Attachment 1), the total annual weight of mobile devices sold currently in the U.S. appears to be lower than the other product categories assessed in this Roadmap. Based on data of units sold in the U.S. in 2007 and energy usage estimates (see Attachment 1), the total annual energy usage of mobile devices sold currently in the U.S. appears to be substantially less than the other three product categories assessed in this Roadmap. Although federal government purchasers ranked mobile devices as a very high priority, based on the feedback received to date, there appears to be a lower level of interest among manufacturers at the present time. 3.0 Implementation Recommendations This Roadmap recommends continuing the same method of implementation for the new products as was taken by EPEAT for computers and monitors. In this system the desired environmental attributes are Page 8

11 adopted in an ANSI-accredited standard, and the implementation of the system, including registration of products to the standard and verification of the accuracy of the registrations, is conducted by an organization that is separate and independent from the standard development organization (SDO). 3.1 Selection of a Standard Development Organization (SDO) The environmental standards for new products should be developed through the ANSI-accredited, voluntary consensus standard process operated by the Standards Association of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). IEEE is recommended as the SDO for the following reasons: It will preserve continuity with EPEAT / IEEE 1680 and build on the successes to date. The standard development process with IEEE was satisfactory. There was no suggestion by stakeholders to change the SDO. It is possible to create a family of IEEE 1680 standards (see Section 3.2). It will maintain consistency and continuity with the existing IEEE 1680 standard and thus provides the greatest ease of reference and use for purchasers. 3.2 Creating a Family of IEEE 1680 Standards Within IEEE standard development it is common to create a family of standards. A family of standards would consist of an umbrella standard containing common elements, and individual standards for different products. Currently IEEE 1680 includes sections that define how the standard is implemented (such as the process for registering products and verifying compliance to the standard) as well as sections that specify the environmental criteria for computers, laptops and monitors. As the method of standard implementation will be common to all of these new standards, it is proposed that 1680 be modified to become the umbrella standard including the common elements describing EPEAT implementation, with the product specific environmental criteria as separate standards under the umbrella standard. This will avoid redundancy, or inconsistency, between the standards and streamline their development by focusing development on product-specific environmental performance criteria rather than the implementation system. It is recommended that the 1680 family of standards be organized as follows: IEEE Standard Scope of the Standard Umbrella Structure This will include Section 1 of 1680 including 1680 Product Registry and Verification Processes. Computer Desktops, Laptops, and Monitors - Environmental criteria and possibly normative references and definitions unique to this product set. Imaging Devices or Televisions/Television Monitors - Environmental criteria and possibly normative references and definitions unique to this product set. Televisions/Television Monitors or Imaging Devices - Environmental criteria and possibly normative references and definitions unique to this product set. Servers - Environmental criteria and possibly normative references and definitions unique to this product set. Mobile Devices - Environmental criteria and possibly normative references and definitions unique to this product set. Notes: 1. The final scope of products in a standard will be determined in the standard development process. 2. The numbering of the imaging devices and televisions/television monitors standards will be finalized after the implementation planning meeting in October. Page 9

12 3.3 Development of a Sponsor In order to implement the structure suggested above, EPEAT and EPA are working with the IEEE to establish a Sponsor Committee responsible for ensuring that all Working Groups developing or amending individual 1680 standards operate under official IEEE membership rules and procedures. The Sponsor Committee s job is to: Establish policies and procedures for the Working Groups. Assure that the Working Groups meet the IEEE rules such as those for openness and balance. Review the standards developed by the Working Groups for consistency with the IEEE format and procedures and submit them to the IEEE Standards Committee for approval. The Sponsor Committee is made up of all the members of all the 1680 Working Groups. The process of forming and achieving approval of the Sponsor Committee is currently underway. We anticipate, however, that Working Groups on the individual standards can begin to develop specific environmental criteria under the existing IEEE Sponsor while the new Sponsor Committee is being set up and its procedures established. Once that Sponsor Committee is approved, work on the individual standards will be integrated into the IEEE standards development process. 3.4 Amendment of 1680 GEC is beginning the IEEE process to provide interpretations of some clauses in the current 1680 standard and to undertake amending 1680 in fall 2007 in order to: Split the existing 1680 into two standards to create the new 1680 umbrella standard and environmental criteria for desktop computers, laptops and monitors. Resolve certain technical inconsistencies or shortcomings that have been identified in the first year of 1680 implementation. It is GEC s intent that this will be narrowly focused opening of 1680 to achieve the above, and not evaluate if the standard should be altered in major ways. The process will include convening two Working Groups, which will likely be comprised largely of the stakeholders in the original IEEE 1680 Working Group, with new stakeholders as necessary. One Working Group will adopt Section 1 and other relevant sections of 1680 to be the umbrella standard. The second Working Group will develop technical amendments of the computer and monitor standard, which were identified during the first verification process. It is anticipated that this process can be completed in 4 to 6 months. The intent upon adoption of 1680 in 2006 was that it would be reopened for revision and updating in 3 to 5 years. Because this amendment is much sooner and focused on creating the umbrella structure and needed technical edits, another future update, approximately 3 to 5 years after the initial launch (2009 to 2011) is still planned. 3.5 Process for Amendments of Existing Standard or Development of New Standards The process for developing each of the standards, either amendments of the existing standard or development of new product standards identified in this Roadmap (1680, , , , and ), is recommended to occur as described below. Much of the process described in this section Page 10

13 is IEEE s process implementing the ANSI essential requirements. For more information on this process, go to the IEEE website at How to Join a Working Group Invitations to join 1680 Working Groups, including instructions on how to do so, will be sent to all those receiving this Roadmap report via . If you would like to join the workgroup(s) and did not receive this report directly, please contact Holly Elwood at Elwood.Holly@epa.gov or Wayne Rifer at wayne.rifer@greenelectronicscouncil.org to be added to the list. Working Groups While the IEEE sponsor and working group procedures are being established and approvals from the IEEE Standards Advisory Board being sought, work may begin developing draft scopes of the standards and/or draft standard concepts or strawmen for consideration by Working Groups in order to expedite completion of the standard. Once approval is received to form the Sponsor Committee, Standard Project Authorization Requests will be developed and submitted for IEEE approval. IEEE Working Groups for each standard will be formally convened. According to the IEEE procedures, the Working Groups must be open and balanced. No single stakeholder group should dominate the process. The process is to define the stakeholder groups that should be involved, open the group for individuals to sign up, and work with the members to assure the required balance. How this will be done will be defined in the procedures document developed by the Sponsor Committee. The goal will be for the Working Groups to be comprised of representatives from each of the stakeholder groups listed below: Manufacturers of products that would be registered to the standard Suppliers of materials, equipment and packaging to those manufacturers Electronics equipment recyclers and reuse organizations Trade associations Environmental advocacy groups Purchasers and users of products Resellers/retailers of products that may be registered to the standard Environmental representatives of governmental regulatory agencies Academic experts in the field of electronics and the environment General public and other The Sponsor Committee will issue updates for stakeholders as Working Groups make progress. Working Group members must actively participate in the meetings throughout the process to remain members in good standing. The Working Group will develop a draft standard to be balloted. This includes reviewing all available data and reaching consensus on a draft. The Working Group is expected to form subgroups that will focus on different categories within the standard. IEEE membership is not required for participation in the Working Group. Each Working Group will have two co-chairs. Balloting Public notice will be issued of the intent to ballot the standard. A balloting group (consensus body) is formed through an open process everyone who has a direct and material interest has a right to participate. However, the balloting group too must consist of a balance of interests, avoiding dominance by any single interest group. As each stakeholder registers to join the Page 11

14 balloting group, they must note which of the stakeholder groups they represent. The Working Group co-chairs will monitor the process and ensure openness and balance. IEEE general and IEEE Standards Association membership is required, with possible exceptions for invited experts, to serve on a balloting group. The draft standard will be issued to the balloting group for balloting. The Working Group will consider all comments received, will make edits accordingly, will then reiterate the balloting with a new draft standard, and will respond to all comments. Attempts will be made to resolve all negative comments. The standard must achieve a minimum of 75% approval rating of the submitted ballots. Final Approval The final standard will be submitted by the Sponsor to IEEE Standards Board for approval. Any party may appeal to the Standards Board if they believe the process was not followed correctly. IEEE will then approve and publish the standard and make it available to the public via the IEEE website ( within 1 6 months. 3.6 Implementation Timeline The standard development process can be expected to take months for each new standard from the first meeting to the close of balloting or publication of the standard. As outlined in the table below, it is recommended that the splitting of the current 1680 into two standards be started in early fall The amendment processes for 1680 and are expected to take 4 to 6 months. Given staffing resources and stakeholder availability, it is recommended that no more than two processes are actively ongoing at any time. Note the initiation dates proposed below are dependent on the progress of earlier standard development processes. Imaging devices and televisions/television monitors are both recommended to be 1 st priority products and initiated within approximately 2 to 3 months of each other. The sequence will be determined at the implementation planning meeting in October (see Section 4) based on resource availability and stakeholder interest. Page 12

15 Proposed Implementation Timeline Standards Amendment/Development IEEE Initiation Timing Standard (Approximate) September 2007 September 2007 December 2007 February 2008 Winter or Spring 2009 Summer or Fall (Amendment) (Amendment) (Development) (Development) (Development) (Development) Scope of the Standard Umbrella Structure Computer Desktops, Laptops, and Monitors Imaging Devices or Televisions/Television Monitors Televisions/Television Monitors or Imaging Devices Servers Mobile Devices Notes Timing and scope will be decided by the Green Electronics Council, not the SDR Timing and scope will be decided by the Green Electronics Council, not the SDR Sequence will be determined at the implementation meeting in October Sequence will be determined at the implementation meeting in October Begin after completion of either or , whichever is first, and the completion of the ENERGY STAR specification Begin after completion of both and and the ENERGY STAR specification for external power supplies This proposed timeline is dependent on securing resources and funding to run these processes. 3.7 Process Management and Support Based on experience with the original 1680 process, it will be important to have staff support (e.g. a process manager and technical expertise) provided throughout the standard development process for each Working Group. This work could include: Coordinating meetings of the Working Groups and the subgroups addressing the categories. Drafting documents, bringing them to the group for review, and incorporating changes until consensus is reached. Assuring that the standard document is in the proper IEEE standard form. Reviewing balloter comments and drafting standard edits and responses. Editing the standard into its appropriate format for submission to the SDO. Facilitating the development process. EPA plans to issue an RFP to select an organization to help manage the standard development processes (see Section 3.8, questions 3 and 4). EPA intends to provide partial funding for development of all four standards. Additional funding will required to complete the standards. Page 13

16 3.8 Undecided Questions The following are outstanding questions: 1. How will the standard development processes be funded? EPA will organize a roadmap implementation planning meeting in October. One of the primary topics of the meeting will be to explore funding opportunities. EPA intends to provide partial funding for development of all four standards. Additional funding will be required. The availability or lack of availability of additional funding could substantially impact the actual sequence and timing of standards development. 2. Should consumer electronic products be included on the existing EPEAT Registry, or implemented some other way? The EPEAT Board of Advisors will consider this following completion of Roadmap recommendations, to discuss roadmap implementation with potential funders and the IEEE Sponsor Committee. 3. Who will staff and coordinate the standards development processes (the process manager )? EPA plans to issue an RFP to select an organization to help manage the environmental performance standard development process. EPA also will convene a meeting of other possible funders to contribute to those efforts. EPA anticipates including interested stakeholders in the selection of the process manager. 4. What criteria will be used to select the process manager? EPA welcomes input from stakeholders on the selection criteria for choosing the process manager, and intends to include some stakeholders in the review process. If you are interested in discussing the RFP or participating as a reviewer, contact John Katz at katz.john@epa.gov. The RFP will be available in late summer Next Steps and Funding Following completion of the Final Roadmap, EPA will: Convene a Standards Implementation Planning meeting to discuss roadmap implementation with potential funders and diverse stakeholders who will participate actively in standard development (October). Work to assemble the teams of stakeholders and support personnel needed to carry out the processes. Oversee the first steps of the convening process for standards development. EPA intends to provide partial funding for development of all four standards. Additional funding will be needed. Page 14

17 Attachment 1 - SDR Evaluation Considerations Table Evaluation of importance/opportunity for incentivizing design improvement (H = high, M = medium and L = low) More detailed information is provided in the EPEAT SDR Background Document Consideration Existing Standards Mobile Phones, Smartphones and PDAs Mobile phones: TCO and Blue Angel PDAs: None identified Imaging Devices (Printers, Copiers and MFDs) Printers: ENERGY STAR, TCO, Nordic Swan, Japanese Eco-Mark. Environmental Choice EcoLogo and Blue Angel Copiers: ENERGY STAR, Blue Angel, Nordic Swan, Environmental Choice EcoLogo and Japan Eco-Mark MFDs: ENERGY STAR, Blue Angel, Nordic Swan, TCO, Environmental Choice EcoLogo and Japan Eco-Mark Servers None identified ENERGY STAR preparing a standard Televisions and Television Monitors ENERGY STAR, TCO and Nordic Swan Evaluation Market Split (Institutional vs. L Two existing standards and no ENERGY STAR SmartPhones In the U.S. in % institutional purchaser and EuP developing standards by end of 2007 H Many existing standards including ENERGY STAR Printers: U.S % institutional U.S % institutional M No existing standards, but ENERGY STAR in development Actual data was not found, however it is likely that the vast H Three existing standards including ENERGY STAR Possible split of 10% institutional purchases and 90% consumer Page 15

18 Consumer) 46% consumer In 2010 projected to drop to 40% institutional purchaser and 60% consumer Source: IDC, 2006a Mobile phones and PDAs No data obtained Copiers: U.S % institutional U.S % institutional MFDs: U.S % institutional U.S % institutional Total U.S % institutional and 26% consumer majority servers are purchased/leased by institutions Source: IDC 2006b Units Sold Annually U.S. Current (2006 or 2007) Projected (2009 or 2010) % Increase Cell phones and PDAs: Estimated U.S. sales in 2007 is 130M units (CEA, 2007) U.S. sales of have doubled 2002 to 2007 (CEA, 2007) SmartPhones In M units In 2010 projected to be 33.9M units 2006 to 2010 projected increase of 308% (based on numbers above) Source: IDC 2006a Printers: U.S M units U.S M units 2007 to 2010 projected decrease of 15% (based on numbers above) Copiers: U.S M units U.S M units 2007 to 2010 projected decrease of 5% (based on numbers above) MFDs: U.S M units U.S M units 2007 to 2010 projected increase of 6% (based on numbers above) 3.3M units in M units in M units in M units in to 2009 projected increase of 69% (based on numbers above) Source: Turner, projected total 35.2M units - CRTs = 10.4M units - Plasma = 13.7M units - LCDs = 17.6 units 2010 projected total 44.7M units - CRTs = 2.1M units - Plasma = 6.0M units - LCD = 32.7 M units 2007 to 2010 projected increase of 27% (based on numbers above) Source: isuppli, 2006 Total units U.S M Page 16

19 Total units U.S M Projected increase of 2% Evaluation Average Unit Product Weight H Rapidly growing market and largest number of units Mobile Phone = 136 g (0.30 lbs) with battery Assume PDAs and SmartPhones are similar Source: Socolof et al., 2007 Source: IDC 2006b L Flat market and mid-range number of units Printers: avg ~15lbs Copiers: avg ~145lbs MFDs: Consumer: avg 13%market share Institutional: avg 87% market share MFD: average ~150lbs M Growing market and smallest number of units Personal and Blade Servers Range: lbs Source: University of Tennessee, 2007 Other Servers: No data obtained M Slightly growing market and mid-range number of units CRT = 65 lb Plasma = 65 lbs (42 ) LCDs = 55 lbs (32 ) Sources: Printer data - HP News Release, Geneva, June 2, 2006 Real Consumer Costs for Electronic Equipment Total Product Category Weight (annual) (estimated using sales data and average unit weight) Based on 2006/07 estimate: Mobile phones and PDAs = 19.5K tons SmartPhones = 1.2K tons Total = 20.7K tons Copier and MFD data: Industry expert estimates Based on 2007 estimate: Printers = 96.7K tons Copiers = 96.1K tons MFDs = 1,486K tons Total = 1,679K tons Based on 2010 estimate: Printers = 85.6K tons Copiers = 91.2K tons MFDs = 1,580K tons Based on 2007 estimate: Blade/personal servers = 78.9K tons Mainframe= no data Based on 2009 estimate: Blade/personal servers = 99.2K tons Mainframe=no data Based on 2007 estimate: CRTs = 337K tons Plasma = 447K tons LCDs = 483K tons Total = 1,267K tons Based on 2010 estimate: CRTs = 68K tons Plasma = 196K tons LCDs = 898K tons Page 17

20 Total = 1,758K tons Total = 1,162K tons Evaluation L H Incomplete data H Substances of Use of consumables such as Comparatively higher toner and ink percent of circuit boards by Note in Products weight (notable differences between product categories) Evaluation L M M H Energy Use (per product unit) Standby mode - 1 W (75% time) Charging mode - 5 W (5% time) Total avg. = 8.76 kwh/yr Source: Rosen and Meier, 2001 Printers: avg could vary widely: Standby mode- 3.6 W (49% time) Idle mode- 12.1W (50% time) Active mode- 361W (1% time) Total avg. = 100 kwh/yr Avg. per units kwh/yr Source: Koomey, 2007 Presence of mercurycontaining lamps in some products Assume: Active mode 8 hours/day Standby mode 16 hours/day Average CRT: Active mode watts Standby mode 2 watts Total avg. = 438 kwh/yr Copiers: measured for copiers during operational mode include (Rosen and Meier, 2002) (Ahmadi et al., 2003): Standby mode W (0% time) Idle mode- 30 W W (99% time) Active mode 100 W W (1% time) Total avg. = 270 kwh/yr Source: Rosen and Meier, 2000 Average plasma: Active mode watts Standby mode 4 watts Total avg. = 981 kwh/yr Average LCD: Active mode watts Standby mode 10 watts Total avg. = 622 kwh/yr Source: Nadel and Moskovciak, 2007 Energy usage data was not found for MFDs. Data for copiers was used as an Page 18

21 Total Estimated Annual Energy Use for Product Category (estimated using sales data) Based on 2006/07 estimate Total = 1.2B kwh/yr approximation. Based on 2007 estimate: Printers = 1.3B kwh/yr Copiers = 0.36B kwh/yr MFDs = 5.4B kwh/yr Total = 7.0B kwh/yr Based on 2010 estimate: Printers = 1.1B kwh/yr Copiers = 0.34B kwh/yr MFDs = 5.7B kwh/yr Total = 7.2B kwh/yr 2005: Total= 23B kwh (direct energy consumption), 45B kwh (including HVAC, auxillary equipment) (Note - this estimate is from Koomey, 2007 and was not estimated using sales data) Projected 2010: Could be up to 40% increase over 2005, if no significant increase in efficiency Based on 2007 estimate: CRT= 4.5B kwh/yr Plasma= 13.5B kwh/yr LCD= 10.9B kwh/yr Total = 29B kwh/yr Based on 2010 estimate: CRT= 0.9B kwh/yr Plasma= 5.9B kwh/yr LCD= 20.3B kwh Total = 27B kwh Source: Koomey, 2007 Evaluation M M H H End of Life Very short lifespan (1.5 Printers: Most components can be years) (IPMI, 2003). Ink jet printers average recycled within current Readily recyclable and refurbishable Relatively low recycling rate. INFORM reported that less than 1 % of cell phones retired and discarded annually are recycled (INFORM, 2003) (This does not assume 99% disposed of may be large storage component). lifetime is approximately 4 years, triggered by repair or obsolescence (EUP, 2007). recycling infrastructure Copiers: Copiers average lifetime is approximately 6 years, triggered by repair or obsolescence (EUP, 2007). Robust lease market! manufacturer dismantling / reuse MFDs: Ink jet MFDs average lifetime is approximately 4+ years, triggered by repair or obsolescence (EUP, 2007) Liquid crystals cannot yet be economically reclaimed at end of life (King County, 2007) Only one manufacturer to-date offers a TV that allows lamp change outs Electronic circuitry, processors, and other typically computer-based TV components can be reclaimed, reused, or recycled at EOL using traditional electronic recycling processes Page 19